DECIDING WHEN TO INTERVENE

Workshop format

Agency, academic, and industrial leaders in the field of sediment management met at the University of Windsor's Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research for a two day workshop on December 1-2, 1998 to discuss and provide advice on the use of data interpretation tools used to make sediment management decisions regarding whether or not to take action beyond source control. Forty-four people participated (Appendix 2).

On the first day of the workshop, speakers presented eleven different case studies on data interpretation tools for making a decision beyond source control (Appendices 3-13). Case study presentations included the following:

• Sediment Assessment and Remediation: Ontario's Approach (Rein Jaagumagi - see Appendix 3);
• Thunder Bay Creosote Cleanup: A Case Study in the Application of Ontario's Approach to Sediment Assessment and Remediation (Rein Jaagumagi - see Appendix 4);
• Decision Making for Sediment: Numeric Biological Guidelines (Trefor Reynoldson - see Appendix 5);
• Ecological Risk Assessment Applied in the Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay (Lisa Williams - see Appendix 6);
• The Application of Human Health Risk Assessment Techniques at Sediment Contaminated Sites Under the Superfund Program (Marian Olsen - see Appendix 7);
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Evaluation and Assessment Procedures (Bob Engler - see Appendix 8);
• 1994/1995 St. Clair River Sediment Program Defining Spatial Extent and Environmental Conditions (Tim Moran and Scott Munro - see Appendix 9);
• Trenton Channel/Detroit River Sediment Assessment and Remediation (Russell Kreis - see Appendix 10);
• A Framework for Interpreting Narrative Sediment Quality Standards (Jim Keating - see Appendix 11);
• Ecological Risk Assessment for the Contaminated Harbor Sediment Adjacent to the Ashland, Wisconsin Lakefront Property - Kreher Park (Bob Paulson - see Appendix 12); and
• The SED-TOX Index for the Assessment and Ranking of Sediment Hazard Potential: How is it Useful in Decision-Making? (Manon Bombardier - see Appendix 13).

In addition, three other case studies of data interpretation tools and approaches were submitted in writing, but not given in oral presentation because of time constraints. These included:

• Contaminated Sediment: When is Cleanup Required? The Washington State Approach (Teresa Michelsen - see Appednix 14);
• Application of Computer Modeling and Biomonitoring in Decision Making for the St. Clair River Area of Concern (John Alexander McCorquodale, Maciej Tomczak, and Gordon Douglas Haffner - see Appendix 15);
• Testing and Evaluation Procedures for Great Lakes Dredged Material Evaluations Developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Jan Miller - see Appendix 8).

On the second day of the workshop, attendees were divided into two breakout groups to focus on specific topics and questions regarding decision-making frameworks, key data elements to be examined in these frameworks, and various technical tools. Each group then presented a summary of its findings and advice (Appendices 16-17). A facilitated discussion to synthesize the output of both groups followed, including a discussion of how best to transfer this technology to RAP participants.

Workshop agenda

CO-SPONSORED BY: U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board, and University of Windsor's Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research

GOAL: To exchange and examine the tools that are used as a means for arriving at a decision regarding whether or not to take action beyond source control. Participants leave with a new set of tools they can apply locally.

WHO WAS INVITED: This was an expert level workshop for agency, academic, and industrial leaders in the field. Consideration will be given at the workshop on how best to transfer the information to RAP practitioners.

Tuesday December 1, 1998.
8:30	Welcome, Workshop Objective Art Szabo - Director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, Kelly Burch - Water Quality Board
8:40	Opening Comments Dave Cowgill, Griff Sherbin - Sediment Priority Action Committee Co-Chairs
8:50	Background, Problem Description Gail Krantzberg - Ministry of Environment
Presentations of data evaluation tools which are used in decision-making, and case studies to highlight their use:
9:00	Canada/Ontario Approach Applied in Thunder Bay, Elmira, Cornwall, and Severn Sound Rein Jaagumagi - Ministry of Environment, Trefor Reynoldson - Environment Canada
9:50	Ecological Risk Assessment Applied in the Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay Lisa Williams - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10:25	Break
10:40	Human Health Risk Assessment Applied at Superfund Sites Marian Olsen - U.S. EPA
11:15	A Reference-Based Tiered Approach Used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bob Engler - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11:50	Lunch
12:50	Lambton Industrial Society/Pollutech Enviroquatics Ltd. Approach Applied in the St. Clair River Scott Munro - Lambton Industrial Society, Tim Moran - Pollutech Enviroquatics Ltd.
1:25	U.S. EPA Approach Applied in the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River Russ Kreis - U.S. EPA
2:00	A Framework for Interpreting Narrative Sediment Quality Standards Jim Keating - U.S. EPA
2:35	Break
2:50	Weight of Evidence Approach Applied at the Ashland Coal Gasification Site Bob Paulson - Wisconsin DNR
3:25	Development of a Toxicity Testing Index Approach Manon Bombardier - Environment Canada
4:00-5:00	Summary, Questions, and Comments Dave Cowgill, Griff Sherbin - Sediment Priority Action Committee Co-Chairs, John Hartig - Water Quality Board
Wednesday December 2, 1998.
8:30-12:00	Breakout session
Breakout Facilitators: Marcia Damato - U.S. EPA, Gail Krantzberg - Ministry of Environment Breakout Groups will gather in the Plenary Room and in Room 228. Breakout Groups will discuss the following: Decision-Making Framework Elements: Protocols and testing guidance Interpretation guidance for individual data types Rules for combining data types to arrive at an overall decision Modeling guidance including human health/ecological risk models for bioaccumulation, sediment resuspension/transport, and natural recovery Alternative Frameworks: Tiered Weight of Evidence Technical Tools: Sediment chemistry, bioassays, benthic community data, lab bioaccumulation, and tissue residue
12:00	Lunch
1:00	Presentations from Breakout Groups
2:00	Synthesis and Recommendations Facilitated
3:30	Discussion of Technology Transfer to RAP Participants Facilitated
4:00	Closing Remarks Kelly Burch - Water Quality Board, Gail Krantzberg - Ministry of Environment